4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion in its resolution of April 19, 2010. Hence, this petition.[27] The Petition The petitioners seek a reversal of the CA rulings under the following arguments: 1. The appellate court committed a serious error of law when it failed to consider that Capoy’s abandonment of his medication and therapy with the company-designated physician is a criminal act or a willful or intentional breach of duty, resulting in an injury, incapacity or disability attributable to him. They submit that for this reason, they cannot be held liable under Section 20(D) of the POEA-SEC, which provides as follows: No compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seafarer resulting from his willful or criminal act or intentional breach of his duties, provided, however, that the employer can prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is directly attributable to the seafarer. The petitioners stress that despite Capoy’s failure to faithfully comply with his physical therapy, his condition was improving. In fact, the company-designated physiatrist already cleared Capoy from a physiatrist standpoint;[28] Capoy could have already been considered fit to work had he not totally abandoned his medication and physical treatment. 2. The CA gravely erred in awarding Capoy permanent total disability benefits absent the company-designated physician’s assessment of his disability. Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC recognizes only the disability grading provided by the companydesignated physician. The petitioners contend that the absence of the companydesignated physician’s medical opinion on Capoy’s case renders any subsequent medical findings unacceptable and without basis. 3. The CA gravely erred in applying the 120-day rule to justify the award of permanent total disability compensation to Capoy. The rule has already been modified in Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.[29] where the Court held that the company doctor, overseeing a seafarer’s treatment, is given a maximum of 240 days to assess the seafarer’s disability or declare him fit to work. It is only after the lapse of the 240-day period and the company doctor fails to give a final assessment of the seafarer’s medical condition may the seafarer be considered permanently and totally disabled. 4. The CA likewise gravely erred in applying the NSA/AMOSUP-NSU CBA in this case, despite the lack of substantial evidence on the occurrence of an accident on board the vessel. Their implied admission of the existence of the CBA cannot automatically be deemed admission of its application as there are rules to be applied before it is given elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55931 4/12